Mansfield Motor Co. v. Moran

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Mansfield Motor Co. v. Moran

133 So. 530, 16 La. App. 147, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 482

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 9, 1931

DocketNo. 3284

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 530 (Mansfield Motor Co. v. Moran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mansfield Motor Co. v. Moran, 133 So. 530, 16 La. App. 147, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 482 (La. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW, J.

Plaintiff sued T. J. Moran and E. B. Dyess on a promissory note made by both defendants for tbe balance due on said note, which was given as the purchase price of an automobile, and also sued for interest and attorney’s fees as stipulated on the face of the note. -

T. J. Moran made no appearance and judgment by default was entered against him. Dyess answered the suit by a general denial of the allegations of plaintiff’s petition, and alleged that he was merely an accommodation endorser for the said T. J. Moran and that at the time Moran defaulted in his payments of the note, the automobile was worth enough to satisfy the claim of plaintiff, and that he requested plaintiff to seize and sell the car, but that plaintiff refused so to do, and its failure to proceed at that time against Moran was a release of appearer from all responsibility on the note.

Judgment was rendered in the lower court in favor of plaintiff, as prayed for, and from that judgment defendant Dyess prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant has made no appearance in this court either by argument or brief, and we know not of what he complains. A careful reading of the record discloses no error in the judgment below, and we therefore assume that the appeal has been abandoned.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that .the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, with all costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DREW, J.

Plaintiff sued T. J. Moran and E. B. Dyess on a promissory note made by both defendants for tbe balance due on said note, which was given as the purchase price of an automobile, and also sued for interest and attorney’s fees as stipulated on the face of the note. -

T. J. Moran made no appearance and judgment by default was entered against him. Dyess answered the suit by a general denial of the allegations of plaintiff’s petition, and alleged that he was merely an accommodation endorser for the said T. J. Moran and that at the time Moran defaulted in his payments of the note, the automobile was worth enough to satisfy the claim of plaintiff, and that he requested plaintiff to seize and sell the car, but that plaintiff refused so to do, and its failure to proceed at that time against Moran was a release of appearer from all responsibility on the note.

Judgment was rendered in the lower court in favor of plaintiff, as prayed for, and from that judgment defendant Dyess prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant has made no appearance in this court either by argument or brief, and we know not of what he complains. A careful reading of the record discloses no error in the judgment below, and we therefore assume that the appeal has been abandoned.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that .the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, with all costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 530, 16 La. App. 147, 1931 La. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansfield-motor-co-v-moran-lactapp-1931.